This subreddit is a thinking ground. Above all else, we respect everyone's opinions and ALL religions. We hope to challenge issues which have captured the public’s imagination, from JFK to 9/11. This is a forum for free thinking, not hate speech. Respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind.

Our intentions are aimed towards a fairer, more transparent world and a better future for everyone.

Rules of r/Conspiracy:

Derisive slurs against people's race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, social order or creed are not tolerated.

No accusations of rules violations in comments. Please report violations.

No blog spam/malicious web sites.

No abusive/threatening language.

No stalking or trolling.

No caps lock.

Facebook links will be removed.

No memes... use /r/ConspiracyMemes. Other image posts are subject to removal at moderators discretion.

Posting links in other subs pointing to specific submissions or comments here is subject to a ban, depending on context.

Posts that attack this sub, users or mods thereof, will be removed. Accusing another user of being a troll or shill can be viewed as an attack, depending on context. Repeat offenders are subject to a ban.

Misleading, fabricated or sensationalist headlines are subject to removal.

I am seriously curious as to why some people mindlessly listen to and believe what the government (now lets take a look here, the government has been involved in many false flag operations, so they really aren't trustworthy) tells them, basically being spoon-fed lies like a baby. I want to know why you guys don't believe it, what evidence you have pointing toward the fact that is was indeed terrorists, and I will do my best to straighten out your beliefs. If you somehow manage to stump me, I applaud you.

Because there is a means, motive, and ability available with no assumptions needed. Which the offical story gives.

To be a conspiracy it requires you to assume the US government is capable of hiding anything (look at all the wikileaks, the trillion dollars misplaced pre-9/11, billion dollars misplaced in Iraq, every. scandal. ever.)

Secondly, and by far the biggest reason... Why did we need a false flag attack to go into Afghanistan? We invaded Iraq because ONE guy said there were WMD's. One. And we didn't even like him that much. Why not make some shit up about the Taliban and Al-Quaida manufacturing nuclear arms? Or chemical weapons? There are DOZENS of excuses that would cost less in lives/materiel, have less possibility for failure, and MUCH less of a chance of a leak occurring.

tl;dr The government is inept, and the conspiracy you've painted from their ineptitude is even MORE inept.

Bin Laden had attacked the US a few times before 9/11, the US knew he was in Afghanistan, Clinton sent the CIA and cruise missiles after him. Orchestrating something as complicated as the Trade Center attacks just to invade Afghanistan would have been really heavy handed.

Because there is a means, motive, and ability available with no assumptions needed. Which the offical story gives.

--Really? DO you know anything of economics? The means? First off, the military industrial complex regardless of what you say is A BUSINESS. The military industrial complex is a multi-billion a year business that has one thing in mind....profit. So the motive? You ever noticed that our country has always been in a constant state of war? Look at america since the early 1900's. There was not a period of time that our country was not in war. Why do i bring this up? Because, as a business being designed about war...it would be smart to always have a state of war so that you don't get funding cut.

Secondly, and by far the biggest reason... Why did we need a false flag attack to go into Afghanistan? We invaded Iraq because ONE guy said there were WMD's. One. And we didn't even like him that much. Why not make some shit up about the Taliban and Al-Quaida manufacturing nuclear arms? Or chemical weapons? There are DOZENS of excuses that would cost less in lives/materiel, have less possibility for failure, and MUCH less of a chance of a leak occurring.

--Do you really think the government cares about our lives? Do you think for a second that President Obama would come to your funeral if you died? If they cared about our lives then why do we always have to be fighting wars?

OK so question for you...If you are a owner of a Multi-billion dollar a year weapons company that has a government contract. Wouldn't it be smart to always be in war?
What i am getting at is this...IN order for this part of our economic system (think of the thousands of people employed within our countries to defense contractors) to survive and sustain its huge profits (we can both agree that profit is what drives this country i hope) by always being in a constant state of war? Now, wouldn't it be easier to always have a constant state of war if we are "defending" ourselves? Look at WW2..American citizens wanted nothing to do with it and the American government also wanted nothing to do with it. Yet, thanks to a "misplaced" warning of pearl harbor we ended up going to war. It is also known that (this is fact you can look it up if you like) bankers were funding both sides of the war. The best way to go to war is give people the illusion of something when in fact could be something else.

You don't seem like a stupid person to me. You have to think about it logically and rationally. It is highly PLAUSIBLE that a group of people knew about the attacks and allowed it to happen. So that they can gain control of the oil and poppy. Think about it man...DO you think these high end C.E.O.s give any fucks about me or you? DO you think they actually could care what you have to say? I met a couple "rich" people and truth be told. THey had no disregard for "normal" people. Me and you WILL NEVER KNOW the truth because, we are not part of that society.

It would also be simpler to pay one person to lie about WMD's rather than pay thousands to keep silent about a massive terror attack. Because the chance of that going wrong is minuscule compared to orchestrating a full scale terror attack.

First off, where do you get thousands? I never once said that the people on the planes, the people involved in the flight of the planes, or the way the towers fell were in question. When it comes to the towers falling we have to look at it logically. The towers fell from the planes plane and simple. Even if there was "explosions" (i don't personally believe that) placed in the building. The initial impact of the planes set everything in motion.

What i am saying is that through the "Knowledge of few" (the small percentage of C.E.O.'s and other heads of corparations) allowed or set up for the "terrorist" attacks of 9/11.

I just want to know where you got thousands from? Also, got a couple questions for you...

Why didn't the planes be intercepted by f-22 jets as per order of regulation of the F.A.A.? (Mind you the planes were off course for at least 45 minutes and had a very interesting flight pattern)

Why did our country then invade an ENTIRE COUNTRY, only looking for a few men? (mind you the actions of 9/11 was by the supposed "AL-Qeda" and not the Iraqi government)

Why did our country then changed it to "finding weapons of mass destruction"?(Mind you, there was no evidence that pointed to this collected by the C.I.A. or the F.B.I.)

All the military personnel, security personnel, everybody in the FAA, the list goes on and on. (you do know that CEO's aren't magicians right? They have peons to do things...)

Military personnel who are not high enough in ranking know nothing of the inter-workings of the military. You think private knows the real reasons behind anything? So a FEW military personal would have to know. Bet these guys love their country enough to risk a couple thousand lives...They do it all the time in the military.

They did, somebody fucked up the orders and they were late in notifying NORAD.

Somebody fucked up the orders....you have to be joking, right? Someone who is part of the "most powerful military in the world" would fuck up when "American Citizens" lives are on the line? Wow, really shows you the regard of "normal" peoples lives in the eyes of our government. That alone should lead you to believe that they could fudge up a lot more then that.

Because Afghanistan gave us a big fuck you when we asked them about Bin Laden.

So that gave us the right to kill thousands of innocent people? Man...you should really think about what you say. From the way you making it seem our government has NO REGARD for human life.

That was Iraq numbnuts. Unrelated to 9/11 and Afghanistan.
You have no evidence. Only circumstance. PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Iraq was a by-product of 9/11 man. Arghanistan was the strong hold militarily to allow us to occupy the countries that our government occupies now.

Guess you never heard of Circumstantial evidence? Being an intelligent human beings and connecting the dots in a logical and rational stance?

Being skeptical, to me, means being open-minded and critical enough to question any and all information regardless of its source or view.

If you want to be skeptical about something you have a theory, you test the theory and you provide data/evidences to support your conclusions.

Just having the patience to listen to the other side is not enough... sitting back and 'questioning everything' by taking it with a 'grain of salt' is not skepticism - it's somewhere in the middle of apathy and denial.

You can usually pick these redditors out by their over-use of terms like pseudo-science and quackery.

I 100% agree. Back a few years ago (maybe 3?) I was 100% against the beliefs of truthers. My good friend tried and tried to convince me, and one night I said fuck it and looked it up. I was surprised by all of the evidence I had been missing whilst I was ignoring it. I like to listen to the reasoning of non-truthers and disprove them. If they come up with something that befuddles me, I like to research it and see what I could gather out of it.

Because from what I've seen the truth movement is mostly based on anomaly-hunting, innuendo, and arguing against the mainstream account rather than putting forward a coherent alternative explanation. I've watched a lot of youtube videos and read a lot of forum posts and 99% of the time truthers will shy away from providing an actual explanation or timeline of what they think really happened - instead it's contextless tidbits of information like "office fires can't melt steel" or "the BBC reported WTC7 collapsing 20 minutes before it actually happened."

It seems like coming up with a coherent alternative to the mainstream narrative is usually left as an exercise to the reader, and I can't come up with an alternative account that makes sense. It's one thing to raise problems with the official story and another thing entirely to come up with one that actually does a better job of explaining the facts. Every attempt I've seen at that ends up looking really silly and has the otherwise amazingly competent conspirators doing dumb things for no discernible reason.

See this is exactly what I mean. I'm not talking about pieces of the puzzle like motivations or individual acts. The biggest problem with the truth movement to me is the lack of a coherent alternative story about what happened when and why.

Putting aside the question of whether the conclusions are legitimate, there's a lot of discussion about how this discredits the official story, but what's an alternative explanation that does fit with it? Most truthers I know think the planes really did hit the towers, possibly via remote control and the buildings were then brought down by a controlled demolition. Does this discredit those theories and point instead to no-plane theories a la Judy Wood or the "missile pod" claims that were taken out of the later versions of Loose Change for being obvious bullshit? Most truthers I know think the no-plane theories are bullshit and yet there's hardly any dissent in the comments on that thread.

So if a plane did hit the tower and it wasn't UA 175, what was it? Why would the conspirators hijack a plane and presumably land it somewhere then crash a completely different plane into the tower? There's no introspection or consideration of what the evidence actually amounts to. It's just taken at face value and there's no attempt to fit it into a coherent and reasonably comprehensive explanation that could be tested against further evidence.

It's a ridiculous burden to put in place for someone to explain something that cannot be explained.

If it could be explained, then the 9/11 commission would've gotten to the bottom of it. But they didn't and they said just that.

I don't understand why people expect conspiracy theorists to figure out all the minor details - as if they know exactly what Dick Cheney did that day. I mean sheesh - talk about skepticism and rationality

The official story reeks of bullshit - that doesn't mean you have to agree with anything any other doubter says. However, it does mean that you are completely full of shit if you are arguing on behalf of the 'official narrative'.

From what I've seen the 9/11 commission report is generally regarded in the truth movement as a part of the coverup. But in fact it's a good example of what the truth movement lacks - an attempt at a unifying, coherent explanation. I'm not asking for every detail to be explained, just some attempt to construct something like an alternative 9/11 commission report, and I haven't seen anything that approaches that degree of coherence, even with the problems the report has.

It's a double standard. If the official story can't explain something then it's evidence of a conspiracy, but if something about the conspiracy theories doesn't make sense then it's unreasonable to expect an explanation. The thing is, explanations don't exist in a vacuum, and can only really be evaluated relative to one another (see explanatory coherence theory). If it's not possible to construct a coherent conspiracy theory that approaches the plausibility of the official story, shouldn't that tell you something?

It's a double standard. If the official story can't explain something then it's evidence of a conspiracy, but if something about the conspiracy theories doesn't make sense then it's unreasonable to expect an explanation.

I never proposed the first standard and to suggest so is misleading.

If it's not possible to construct a coherent conspiracy theory that approaches the plausibility of the official story, shouldn't that tell you something?

What is coherent about comparing a non plausible act with a hodge-poge of theories by a completely discordant group? You are coming off incredibly silly - for this subreddit, no less.

I'm not sure why you'd expect the 9/11 truth movement to put forward such a document, seeing as it doesn't have access to the evidence (of which the 9/11 commission was denied as well, on some occasions) necessary to perform a thorough investigation. It's an incredibly naive idea. Certainly not worth the thought processes necessary to formulate from a person obviously intelligent enough to ponder explanatory coherence theory.

Yes, as a guitarist I could use a frequency analyzer to decode how Jimmy Page plays a song, but seeing as how I don't have one - it would be rather difficult if not impossible. However if you listen and try it yourself, you'll eventually figure it out.

If you are waiting for CNN to break the news that 9/11 was a coverup you are a damned fool.

My point is that this pretty much summarizes the arguments of the truth movement as a whole, as much as anything can summarize such a heterogeneous movement. The vast majority of what's out there isn't purported to be positive evidence in favour of an alternative theory but instead negative evidence against the "terrorists did it" theory.

I don't expect a unifying theory because obviously not everyone will agree on it. That much is clear. But for the sake of intellectual honesty I want people in the truth movement to consider how each piece of evidence impacts on the case for their own theory or theories as well as the case against the official story. For example, the plane transmission thread, if accurate, seems to invalidate a lot of the mainstream controlled demolition theories, but there's almost no discussion of that- the vast majority of commenters in that thread didn't take it any further than "this goes against the official account so I'll assume it's true." There's plenty of evidence, even as discussed by people within the truth movement, that UA175 did in fact hit one of the twin towers. Both can't be true, so one must be wrong - and yet this kind of discussion is anathema. Look at how anyone who questioned the truther "consensus" in that thread was downvoted into oblivion. This isn't critical thinking, it's cheerleading.

With your guitar analogy, maybe you can go look up tabs online for a song you want to play - they're not perfect, sure, and there are probably a few different versions, but you can at least find one that sounds plausible enough. There's nothing like that in the truth movement, just bits and pieces that wouldn't quite fit together even if anyone were inclined to try.

With your guitar analogy, maybe you can go look up tabs online for a song you want to play - they're not perfect, sure, and there are probably a few different versions, but you can at least find one that sounds plausible enough. There's nothing like that in the truth movement, just bits and pieces that wouldn't quite fit together even if anyone were inclined to try.

Umm, that's exactly like the truth movement. If you go on youtube there are thousands of videos trying to piece together various parts of the puzzles. Those are exactly like tabs - they don't always get it perfect but they just might give you the right idea.

The vast majority of what's out there isn't purported to be positive evidence in favour of an alternative theory but instead negative evidence against the "terrorists did it" theory.

What would you consider positive evidence in this case? Given the lack of power 9/11 investigators have, it still seems like a bizarre standard to apply. It's not that it doesn't make sense, it would in most other situations. But the skepticism you are applying in this situation is so backwards it is bizarre. It's like saying the big bang doesn't make sense so you are going to stick with Jesus until they can figure it all out. Maybe the big bang is stupid and it doesn't make sense - that is still no reason to stick with Jesus .

Umm, that's exactly like the truth movement. If you go on youtube there are thousands of videos trying to piece together various parts of the puzzles. Those are exactly like tabs - they don't always get it perfect but they just might give you the right idea.

Well no, in the truth movement, people argue about individual chords ("the chorus starts with Gmin" "no, fucking disinfo agents, look at his fingers in this bootleg concert video, it's obviously G7!") but nobody's really put together a tab for the whole song. You can try to mash together all the different chords people are talking about but it comes out sounding discordant and nonsensical because nothing really fits together.

What would you consider positive evidence in this case? Given the lack of power 9/11 investigators have, it still seems like a bizarre standard to apply. It's not that it doesn't make sense, it would in most other situations. But the skepticism you are applying in this situation is so backwards it is bizarre. It's like saying the big bang doesn't make sense so you are going to stick with Jesus until they can figure it all out. Maybe the big bang is stupid and it doesn't make sense - that is still no reason to stick with Jesus .

Positive evidence would be something like the purported thermite traces in the WTC dust. There is some out there, but very little. Most is just anomaly hunting and picking up anything that doesn't fit with the official story as evidence for some nebulous alternative theory.

It's interesting that you bring up Jesus versus the big bang because the truth movement uses almost exactly the same tactic as young-earth creationists do when they attack evolutionary theory. In both cases you have a vocal minority of nominal outsiders putting forward an unorthodox view in opposition to a more widely accepted (and extensively specific) one. The majority of the arguments are negative rather than positive (in that they amount to "your explanation has flaws, so ours is better"), but there's very little in the way of building testable alternative theories that can be evaluated on their own merits. Both accuse their more vocal opponents of being part of a sinister conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Ultimately, for me it boils down to the fact that the truth movement calls itself the truth movement, and yet what's conspicuously lacking is any real attempt to put together a possible model of what the truth actually is.

The primary reason why I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job is because I just don't see any evidence that we possess a government capable of such a massive and coordinated conspiracy.

What is more likely is that a group of determined belligerent resolved themselves to attack us and set about to exploit systemic weaknesses in our infrastructure.

Actually, the best evidence to suggest why a "false flag" operation wasn't necessary for the expansion of the "War on Terror" is that the pitch for the Iraq war was all about WMDs and not 9/11. If anything, the connection between the existential threat posed by Saddam Hussain and 9/11 was played down and Osama bin Laden entirely marginalized.

Finally, I've never seen anything to support the INCREDIBLE claim that three gigantic skyscrapers in Lower Manhattan were covertly wired for explosives for months with no one noticing. I've lived in NYC my whole life. Spent a great deal of time downtown. I just can't figure out the logistics. How did the get all the necessary explosives on site and installed in buildings that are staffed 24/7 by thousands of ordinary citizens? They didn't.

I'll admit, I sympathize with people who look at the buildings collapse and say it looks like any other controlled demolition That said, years ago, an engineer once told me that it looks like a controlled demolition because that's how skyscrapers are designed to collapse. WTC7 was on fire for hours then collapsed.

I believe there are people in our government who are guilty of criminal negligence related to the attacks. I don't believe there's a group of 100 or so super-smart members of a real-life SPECTRE orchestrating diabolical plots to bring about the New World Order.

I just don't see any evidence that we possess a government capable of such a massive and coordinated conspiracy.

So, they're coordinated enough to invade multiple countries, but not blow up 4 buildings? They lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to get us into Vietnam...

What is more likely is that a group of determined belligerent resolved themselves to attack us and set about to exploit systemic weaknesses in our infrastructure.

Our government isn't coordinated enough to do this, but a group of belligerents living in caves from halfway around the world are?

Actually, the best evidence to suggest why a "false flag" operation wasn't necessary for the expansion of the "War on Terror" is that the pitch for the Iraq war was all about WMDs and not 9/11. If anything, the connection between the existential threat posed by Saddam Hussain and 9/11 was played down and Osama bin Laden entirely marginalized.

They were saying Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 the day of the attack and that he had bases in Tora Bora, the excuse for invasion of Afghanistan.

Finally, I've never seen anything to support the INCREDIBLE claim that three gigantic skyscrapers in Lower Manhattan were covertly wired for explosives for months with no one noticing. I've lived in NYC my whole life. Spent a great deal of time downtown. I just can't figure out the logistics. How did the get all the necessary explosives on site and installed in buildings that are staffed 24/7 by thousands of ordinary citizens? They didn't.

Many floors were owned by the very people involved in massive money laundering scandals, such as Enron and government agencies. ACE elevator had done large scale work in all the elevator shafts, which were inside the core columns as well. Bomb sniffing dogs were called out in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

I'll admit, I sympathize with people who look at the buildings collapse and say it looks like any other controlled demolition That said, years ago, an engineer once told me that it looks like a controlled demolition because that's how skyscrapers are designed to collapse. WTC7 was on fire for hours then collapsed.

Buddy, skyscrapers are not designed to collapse, in fact the WTC complex was built to sustain MULTIPLE airplane crashes. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, it burns hundreds of degrees cooler than what is required.

And if you don't things like alloyed iron and lead can't melt in a common fire, you really don't know much about metal. Even I don't know much about metal, yet I manage to melt forged aluminum horseshoes into a liquid using ONLY wood in a backyard fire pit. And that's WITHOUT the addition of forced air, which you would find in a high rise.

"A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames
generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature
increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to
melt steel at 1500 °C." (pdf Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction)

As for your spherical metallic particles...

Sphere formation and size
Not only is it necessary for the material to have achieved extremely high temperatures to melt and so be able to
form small spheres, it is also necessary that some violent physical disturbance occur in order to shatter the
molten material into the sizes observed, 1.5mm down to about one micron diameter.

Presence of large numbers of iron-rich spherules in the dust published in USGS report

You are trying to obtuse on purpose. Jet fuel wasn't the only thing being burnt that day, my friend. Last weekend, using WOOD alone and no forced air source, I got aluminum to melt in an open top cast iron dutch oven. That means wood out in the open air on a cool night burns at at least 1,200F +. So that makes the idea that a fire in a metal/drywall building, which would help contain the heat, fed by multiple fuel sources, like plastic, wood, jet fuel, etc... and being fed air by updrafts, could only get to 1,000 the point of someone who can not think for themselves.

As for your "violent physical disturbance", does falling and hitting a surface count? Because if so, it's exactly the thing I described to you. As to your link, no "spherules" were listed. Iron was, but so were a lot of other metals/elements.

I melted aluminum horseshoes this weekend in my fire pit using only wood. It was a silver puddle in a dutch oven until the fire burned down, when it solidified.

I have also seen them use thermite to fuse railroad tracks together. It was hot for awhile, but not days. You seriously need to think about it, and ask how much potential energy is in this thermite you speak of to allow steel to stay molten for days, and why we instead use massive electric furnaces to melt steel for manufacture, rather than a few pounds of that stuff?

jet fuel only burns as a gas, meaning that almost all of it vaporized on impact in that big fireball. As a liquid it isn't flammable, you can even drop a match into a bucket of jet fuel and all that will happen is the match will go out. There are numerous videos on youtube that prove this...

This weekend, using ONLY wood and a cast iron dutch oven, I melted a few dozen aluminum horse shoes into a liquid mass.

Now that was JUST wood. What happens when you take jet fuel soaked foam cushions or carpet, and let that burn. That potential energy from the fuel just doesn't go away. True, you can drop a match into a bucket of jet fuel and it goes out. But try putting a wick in it and see if it burns. Or heat the bucket until the fuel starts to evaporate and become an aerosol. Or just the furniture itself. It will get hot. Also, all the chemtrail chemicals stored on every plane. You know how hot those burn?

Our government isn't coordinated enough to do this, but a group of belligerents living in caves from halfway around the world are?

He meant the government couldn't do it and keep it secret. It seems like it would be ridiculously easier for some terrorist to fly planes into the towers rather than the government to gather an assembly of people to wire the towers with bombs without anyone noticing and keep the hundreds of people likely involved quiet. More importantly it seems completely unnecessary to set up bombs if you're just gonna have planes crash into them anyways...

They were saying Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 the day of the attack and that he had bases in Tora Bora, the excuse for invasion of Afghanistan.

If we wanted to use this as an excuse to invade Afghanistan or any country we would have made the hijackers the same nationality of the country we wanted to invade. But that wasn't the case. They were all Saudis.

The way intelligence works is that we have clues and pieces to a puzzle but we can really interpret it. Once something like 9/11 happens suddenly the signs make sense. Its not like we had no active intelligence prior to the attack and had to start doing research and investigation to determine who was the likely culprit.

If the best evidence for an inside job which would have taken months of planning and involved hundreds of people is the testimony from a person saying they saw 5 Israelis "dancing" then that is pretty weak.

That's because no matter how highly motivated individuals are they can't do everything themselves. You have people who plan it, you have those that would have to get the bombs, figure out out much explosives are necessary, those that need to plant them, you need to be hired for the job, trained, etc. If you think of all the small details its ends up being a lot of people.

I have no doubt that the US or any government could easily orchestrate such an attack but the logistics involved would mean many people would know and it would be almost impossible for it to be kept secret for long. Just the difficulty of keeping such a scandal secret would be enough of a deterrent. Seems way more plausible that terrorist did it as blowing stuff up is usually there thing.

That's because no matter how highly motivated individuals are they can't do everything themselves.

Meaning they need unmotivated individuals?

You have people who plan it, you have those that would have to get the bombs, figure out out much explosives are necessary, those that need to plant them, you need to be hired for the job, trained, etc. If you think of all the small details its ends up being a lot of people.

Yes, but lets break it down here. You've already brought in the downvotes, so why not?

The persons or people at the top make the plan. They reach out, possible through a mediating party to a group where people are already trained. Some allege connections between CIA and various terrorist groups. If that were the case, wouldn't it be easy to have them covertly support those that want to attack American targets(for any number of reasons), allowing them to use false flag, self initiated attacks and wipe their hands of it?

This follows the traditional problem, reaction, solution paradigm of orchestrating the events you need to do what you want.

Seems way more plausible that terrorist did it as blowing stuff up is usually there thing.

The theories of Terror Ties, and Inside Job are not mutually exclusive.

And you obviously know nothing about buildings. I've worked in the facilities department of a small rise and semi high rise office building. Our people are daily in areas of the building the average person who worked there for years had never seen in their lives. Places like the UPS battery storage rooms, the generator rooms, the electrical rooms, the telco rooms, above the drop ceilings, etc...

Yet there are also rooms WE didn't have access to, like the electrical and telco vaults or client spaces for things like data storage, which were harder to get into than places like The White House, using things like man-trap doors, unless you worked for THAT client. Places where you couldn't replace a lightbulb without having an escort from the client. We also daily escorted multiple people from places that supported clients, like electricians and carpenters and plumbers and etc...

So, you can have your small number of highly motivated individuals. BUT, there's no way they could prep and wire a building that size with none of those hundreds of facilities/utilities workers noticing something out of place for the weeks/months it would take. All that would need to happen is some Union electrician working on his floor seeing some wiring that he doesn't know and either tracing it or cutting it to spite the scab worker who put it in to destroy all of that work.

Oh, I know facilities departments. From fusible links on HVAC systems to removing ceiling panels to track clogged condensate pans to simplex-grinnel life safety systems to Alerton systems for climate control to universal waste collection for bulbs/ballasts to replacing sloan sensors on urinals to grease inspections on hood systems to Cheetah/FM-200 systems in server rooms to SPCC plans that required PIG kits for the UST's that supplied our generators, etc...

I've also watched a fair share of controlled demolition documentaries in my time. The amount of prep that is required for one is not something done quickly. One doesn't simply walk up, slap a device on a beam/support, and walk away. There is prep and planning that needs to be done and that takes time, especially if one is to believe all the videos that show how many floors were supposedly wired.

But perhaps all I've written is just NLP to force you to change what you believe/know.

I can't do a point by point on my phone but I really appreciate you giving a detailed response.

As a general response, I absolutely find it plausible that a relatively well funded group of men could train to fly a commercial jet, take an unsuspecting crew by force in a fashion very similar to any number of hijackings and crash into skyscrapers.

I also don't believe a country's ability to stumble into a sovereign country will little a basically non-existent military force and hapharzardly occupy it means it is also capable of highly complex false flag operations like the one you suggest happened on 9/11.

I don't know anything about the elevator work in the buildings. Are you suggesting that they were rigging explosives in all the buildings in the elevator shafts? Lastly, I'm not suggesting that skyscrapers are designed to collapse. I'm saying they're designed with a specific structure that bears loads in a specific way. If you weaken those supports, the other beams will collapse like dominos. How should a building that had flaming debris falling on it for hours react? Should it fall over like a Jenga game or should it be subject to its interconnected form and collapse in on itself? The latter seems more plausible. And, I guess that's my point. I'm not here to tell you that I know you're wrong and I'm right. I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job because that is not the most plausible explaination given my experience of the event and my experience with reality.

I would make sure that the plane wasn't actually taken over, but suffering some kind of communications failure. But it's easy to look back and with all the knowledge of what happened and say we could have shot down all the planes and not hit an innocent one by accident.

You also forgot to mention that weeks leading up to 9/11 groups of white vans, never before seen entering the world trade center garage, came every night at 3am as the cleaning staff was leaving and where then seen again leaving at 5am as people arrived to open the building, This and more can be seen here in CIA Asset Susan Lindauer Can Now Speak 10 years after 9-11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGI4jfwOmOk

And they did what? Work that no one ever discovered? Work in the facilities department of a major building or a sub contractor of the same, and you would see how there's no way you could set up that much equipment/wiring and having no one discover it.

Well, we'll ignore exactly how different and out of the ordinary load bearing elements look after a being set up and prepped for demolition look like, because again, anyone who sees it would notice something was up, and we are expected to believe people saw that, said nothing to anyone, and continue to say nothing about it. Also, if they did prep them, some minimal cutting would have to be done before hand. Again, if you have ever worked in a building, you would know what it would take to impair a life/safety system(which is needed even if you do something like dry-walling becuase of the dust it generates, and also that there would be a paper trail because you not only have to alert the alarm company, you have to alert the local FD as well as a fire marshal as per NFPA guidelines for any impairment.

So they put (battery powered?)radio receivers on all of these bombs/devices in one of the most densely packed cities, and had no qualms any kind of interference could accidentally set them off? And also it was 2001, so they maybe had some Li-Ion batteries, but they could last for weeks? Not even a current cell phone will last that long on stand by, and we use digital which uses less power than a analog phone.

People did say things about people going in and out of the buildings at night, they were ignored as were most other questions brought up about the "official story". Im not sure how they would have disguised them but i assume they found a way. How else could core columns of steel be sliced like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBXZOGc-DOg

Also if you dont believe that technology that is greater than the current technology used in everyday society exist then im sorry. The government / uber rich are a solid 10 years ahead of what is acutally "modern day" just do some research.

Wait, you asked how "core columns can be sliced like this", then link to a video which explain it was done by clean up crews. Consider me convinced on that point!

And OK, the government is 10 years ahead of what is actually modern day. So they would have access to today's technology, since 9/11/01 was over 11 years ago. So back then they still didn't have access to batteries that could last for weeks in a analog cell phone or even a digital cell phone.

There's a lot of stuff I didn't mention, i get kind of tired explaining the same points over and over again, but good of you to mention that.. there's a whole bunch more proving it was obviously an inside job, you'd either have to be a shill or in complete denial not to realize it by now (not you, the guy arguing it wasn't).

You can completely ignore the controlled demolition theory and its still an obvious inside job. I have come to give the controlled demolition theory credence but it does raise the bar for belief IMHOP. I think prior knowledge, financial hijinks, obstructed investigations, drills, Cheney's stand down of NORAD, prestaging for the Afghanistan invasion and a White House already on Cipro make an inside job pretty credible and its really just the tip of the iceberg. Every one that acted in the best interest of the country trying to raise the alarm on the attack has been drummed out and marginalized while incompetence has been rewarded and promoted. The CIA and friends were allready taking down foreign governments with terrorism and dirty tricks, the 93WTC attack was planned and materialy assisted by the FBI, I don't believe organisations charged with the type of subterfuge that the CIA, Naval Intelligence, FBI and NSA are upto can be sand boxed eventually those chickens come home to roost.

This is more compelling. But at worse I see gross negligence bordering on a quasi-conscious, self-destructive posturing stemming from a Dr. Strangelove-type paranoia about the Middle East that created the very threats the incompetent g-men were promising they could thwart.

I don't see the motive. What is the purpose of planning and executing such an attack? Couldn't be oil. Or the billions taken off the back of a truck in Iraq? That's a rounding error for people with this sort of power. What's the point? To show that we could push the country into bankruptcy losing two wars? Or was the point to gain the CIA unprecedented power to wage a drone war in Pakistan? Because without 10 years of fruitless engagement overseas, we would have never covertly developed drone warplanes.

I just don't see why they would go through the trouble of 9/11 when it seems utterly disconnected from any real substantive gain in power by our clandestine services.

I don't get this argument. What is so massive? All you need are key government figures. Most key institutions that would've been involved were playing out scheduled (go figure!) wargames the day of. Two dozen figureheads? Between bush, cheney, silverstein and Giuliani. How many underlings do you think had to know about it? Ok, there is the demo crew and the psychological agents too, but we obviously have the CIA in on it at this point. Not all of them, but I'm sure you are aware they aren't a monolithic entity.

I am not sure where the you got WMD with the "War on Terror," so if you could explain that would be nice.

As for the bombs, in WTC 7 it would be really easy, since everyone housed in there was a part of some sort of government agency. One big piece of evidence is that the fires in WTC 7 were tiny and were very few. The sprinklers should have easily distinguished them, but they never turned on. Also, the only steel buildings ever to be destroyed by fire (as of 9/11) were the World Trade Centers. Larry Silverstein, the owner of the World Trade Center (not sure if he still is) had blatantly admitted that they had demolished it. He said, on live news, "Just pull it, and so they pulled it, and we watched the building collapse." Pull, meaning in construction terms is to destroy it. Also, WTC 7 was the home of many government agencies so (I am not 100% of this one but it makes a lot of sense) they decided to destroy it because it could have held important information on the plot. As for the Twin Towers, I can't really say anything about explosives because I haven't really looked into it.

So you heard from an engineer that they should have fallen that way? Strange because I also heard form an engineer, but he said that they definitely should not have. The way the Twin Towers were designed was that they had 3 sections, each being separated by a lot of concrete and steel, so the buildings should have just had the top fall over and the rest be unscathed.

Now just WTC 7 alone could be enough proof to unravel the theory. If it had bombs in it, and it went down with the help of the government, the whole thing was an inside job. Yet there is a plethora of other such evidence with the other buildings, planes, etc...

The fires in WTC7 were not"tiny" or "very few." There was a GE substation with gas powered generators in the first floors of the building. The huge gash from the Twin Tower debris severed the fuel lines, literally throwing gas on the fire. Along with severing the fuel lines, the hole in the side of WTC7 from a next door collapsing building also damaged the water lines used by the sprinkler system. The reason why Silverstein said to "pull it" (more on that in a second) was due to the lack of water pressure inhibiting the fire fighters to actually fight the fire inside Building 7.

Larry Silverstein... had blatantly admitted that they had demolished it. He said, on live news, "Just pull it, and so they pulled it, and we watched the building collapse." Pull, meaning in construction terms is to destroy it.

Please, stop mindlessly repeating "Loose Change". I don't know how many times that statement has been debunked as not meaning what Truthers think it means.

Watch the actual video of Silverstein's quote. He was talking to the fire department commander. "Pull it" is not an industry term for explosive demolition, it is, however, used by fire fighters to mean being "pulled" out of a building. Here are interviews of fire fighters who were in Building 7 using the term.

First of all, the fires in the building were not very big, and there really weren't many compared to the Twin Towers. This picture is of the Windsor tower in Madrid, Spain. The tower is made of steel and is 32 stories tall. The fire burned inside for 18 hours, yet no collapse or even core failure.

I wasn't quoting "Loose Change" I have never even seen the movie. Plus, that video you showed me (the same one I watched...) and the interview with the firefighter do not help your case at all.

True, but the Windsor Tower didn't have a massive skyscraper knocking a hole into the side of the building, taking out a lot of the structural support.

The video and firefighter interview do help, not sure how you aren't seeing it.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.

-Richard Banaciski, firefighter with Ladder 22

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire [the fire suppression was out], and I said [to the FD commander], you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it [the firefighting operation in WTC7].' And they [Fire Department] made that decision to pull [the firefighters] and then we watched the building collapse.

True, but the Windsor Tower didn't have a massive skyscraper knocking a hole into the side of the building, taking out a lot of the structural support.

Neither did WTC 7. Most of the fires were claimed to be caused by falling debris. Look at the Bankers Trust building. It was hit way worse than WTC 7 according to this picture. So why didn't that fall? In fact, the Bankers Trust building wasn't even on fire. There are accounts of building 7 being on fire as early as 9:15 AM, barely a half hour after the impact. Large debris didn't start falling until around 9:50 AM. I would also like to point out (even though I am not sure about this one, it seems a bit fishy to me) that BBC reported WTC 7 (or the Saloman Brothers building) collapsed 20 minutes before it even happened. Starts around 2:00.

I would also like to point out (even though I am not sure about this one, it seems a bit fishy to me) that BBC reported WTC 7 (or the Saloman Brothers building) collapsed 20 minutes before it even happened. [3] Starts around 2:00

That's because, when it was clear that WTC7 was going to collapse, the various news networks were informed and the BBC got the information wrong.

So why didn't that fall? In fact, the Bankers Trust building wasn't even on fire.

You said it. It wasn't on fire. WTC7 had the one-two-punch of being on fire and receiving massive amounts of structural damage. Also, like I said before, WTC7 featured unusual construction since it was built right on top of a ConEd substation. The Windsor Tower and Bankers Trust were built differently. Although, obviously, the Bankers Trust Building didn't collapse, it did receive enough damage that it was deconstructed.

There are accounts of building 7 being on fire as early as 9:15 AM, barely a half hour after the impact.

Do you have a source on that? I've never heard of it being on fire before the planes even hit.

BBC report

Firefighters were pulled out of Building 7 over concern that it was going to collapse. Two hours later it finally did. Here is an interview with the chief of the fire department in which he mentions just that. When it did eventually fall it wasn't very unexpected.

It isn't outside the realm of possibility that on a day as confusing and chaotic as 9/11 that someone with the BBC heard something about WTC7 collapsing and thought it was "did collapse" rather than "going to collapse."

Did you not look at the diagram? The Bankers Trust building was affected way more than WTC 7, and the picture of the actual building looks like the damage looks a lot worse than the damage seen at WTC 7.

I've never heard of it being on fire before the planes even hit.

The North tower was hit at 8:46 AM, the South was hit at 9:03 AM. It was in a show on History channel, so I give it a decent amount of credit (and this is before History was shit). Here is the video.

I am not sure how they could screw that up, especially with a live feed of the city in the background, but it does seems very reasonable that it was a screw up.

I'll say it again, the Bankers Trust building was not on fire. The construction of the two buildings was different as well. I prepared this neat little picture to illustrate it. See the cantilever transfer girders? Those are what the collapse of the North Tower damaged when it fell. The Bankers Trust Building had nothing like it.

The North tower was hit at 8:46 AM, the South was hit at 9:03 AM.

OK, disregard what I said, by "impact" I thought you mean the plane impact.

The video says the fire was started by the flaming debris from the plane impact with the North Tower, right next to WTC7. Nothing really abnormal about that.

No one has ever answered this for me, but has anyone gone through the coverage of 9/11 and made a comprehensive list of every mis-report/conflicting report that was made, or are we to believe that the ONLY mistake made on 9/11 was by the BBC, but it wasn't really a mistake, it was because the "inside job script" was leaked to the BBC as a outside party? Were any other buildings reported to have fallen that didn't actually?

I remember that day well, and there were MULTIPLE mis-reports for HOURS after the initial impact, from the amount of planes to bombs going off on the US Capitol steps, etc...

That is why I am sick of hearing about the BBC thing, because it's people obviously cherry picking and anomaly hunting to prove something. I would have more respect if someone would say that there were multiple mistakes in reporting being made due to all the confusion, and that is why they reported it before it happened.

How else would the BBC know to announce that building 7 collapsed? If they didn't have a script, it's like they would have to rely on video to announce it happens, and that's just crazy talk. But I guess the script was done in US time, and the BBC reporters didn't know how to read it correctly, so they announced it before the planned implosion.

I think it's widely accepted that the Second Iraq War was an extension on the "War on Terror" which was, I assume, the point of the false flag attack. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The reason I brought up WMDs is because they were used to scare up support for the second invasion of Iraq which was planned for and pushed by the neocons since the first Gulf War. It seems highly inefficient to plann and execute a false flag attack to justify an invasion of Afgahinstan only to push WMDs as the reason to invade the real prize - Iraq. Now, if the Middle East has nothing to do with 9/11 t"rutherism" then please correct me.

7WTC was mostly filled with financial companies but did in fact have a number of govt agencies/offices. I don't see how that makes it easier to bring in the people and equipment necessary to rig the building to explode. Further, I don't buy the rationale you put forward for why they would want to blow up the building anyway. To destroy evidence of their plot? Why would they even keep records of a criminal conspiracy? I don't see how you can simulatously believe the government would be so dumb as to create and file incriminating evidence in a building they secretly brilliantly rigged to explode in order to cover their tracks. It doesn't add up.

There is also the whole Enron case. I don't understand it 100%, but from what I get out of it, WTC 7 held the documents for Enron and was trying to cover up corporate fraud by destroying the building. Again, I don't really understand that whole case, but from what I get it seems to make a bit of sense.

April 2003 responses: 53% said Yes, 38% said No.
October 2005 responses: 33% said Yes, 55% said No.
September 2006 responses: 31% said Yes, 57% said No.
September 2007 responses: 33% said Yes, 58% said No.

I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracies because what they have is flimsy evidence pushed by people with an agenda, who are willing to misrepresent their own findings. A perfect example of this is Niels Harrit: His thermite nonsense. He was lauded for having his findings published in a "peer reviewed" journal, the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal, and this was pushed as scientific evidence of 911 being a conspiracy.

Then we found out that the journal was based on people paying to have their work published, about how his findings were bogus, all that good stuff, and yet it persists as a meme, which leads me to my conclusion:

It's a religion. A religion where the NWO/Reptilians/Jewish bankers/rothschilds are trying to kill 80% of us with fluoride/action against global warming. It's a potpurri of crazy, crazy people, uninformed people, conned people, and anyone who argues against them are shills; government-paid, possibly-reptillian shills. I invoke Alex Jones and David Icke as perfect examples. And don't get me started on the anti-Semitism thing.

There are a variety of reasons why I am not a truther, and it essentially goes back all the way to 2004. I remember the first time I saw the loose change documentary and sort of thought that was a smoking gun. It seemed like insurmountable evidence to show that it was indeed an inside job. Shortly thereafter I saw the popular mechanics article that sort of put to bed a lot of the objections that the documentary read, and was forced to reexamine my view. I generally consider myself a skeptic, and this anecdote I hope helps shed some light on that fact, but obviously with an event that has as much gravity of 9/11, it pays to look at all angles as best as I can.

Obviously a lot of time has passed, and the truther theory has evolved throughout time, and the 9/11 commission report has come in, and I still remain a skeptic on the topic of inside job. The evidence I've seen in its favor is not sufficient, in my opinion, to usurp the information I already have. Further, this opinion extends also to my skepticism of most government-based theories. In my experience, and based on the evidence I've seen, our federal government simply isn't competent enough to execute something of this scale and cover it up effectively. Further, the ends which they allegedly were pursuing seem illogical, especially when considering where we stand after 11 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obviously this issue is very close to home for a lot of people, as it should be. And I love that the people on this subreddit are so adamant about questioning authority and not just taking things at face value. But for me, where I'm standing, it just doesn't seem likely, or logical, when looking at the facts that 9/11 was an inside job.

The only question you really need to ask yourself is this: Did TPTB further their agenda?

Iraq and Afghanistan are under our (puppet) control, we're on the brink with Iran (which has been stated as being in line), we created an Arab spring which gave us a bit more control over many middle-eastern countries and - to top it all off, the war machine is well-oiled and those companies who help in the war efforts are being well paid.

I think things are going along just swimmingly.

Oh, and let's not forget the "Patriot Act" - the most unpatriotic thing that has ever been invented. All thanks to 9/11.

the ends which they allegedly were pursuing seem illogical, especially when considering where we stand after 11 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You think the elites in the US government would carry out a false flag attack in order to lessen US debt or improve the economic situation of the common man or even improve US standing in the world. Sorry that comes across as very naive to me.

Whilst I agree that pretty much everything collected by citizen investigation is circumstantial I think we can all agree that whatever evidence did exist was disposed of rapidly.

Historically terrorist crime scenes have been documented and where air craft are involved the NTSB usually gets a poke at the scene also. The curious fact of 9/11 is that none of this was allowed, even the official investigation was done behind closed doors and all that stuff is sealed.

How can there be any real 'evidence' either way when all of it was compromised on that day, and the duration thereafter.

If you ask me, whatever truth there was has long since been sabotaged and unfortunately we'll probably never know why.

So to say it was terrorists is just as much as a leap of faith as to say it was government. We have little to no real evidence either way, it was all disposed of without formal investigation.

Because all of the documents and diplomatic memoirs I have read puts 9/11 in the context of a tremendously failed policy with Afghanistan, the ISI, the CIA, arms dealing by the American government.
I believe that a lot of truthers and Americans were shocked from the horrors of the attack and some resorted to creating a narrative that underneath all the chaos there was some sort of order, some sort of control over the world, that there was some one behind the wheel.
I am under the believe that no one is in control of the wheel.

As a non-truther, I'm not sure if it was an inside job or not, but I disbelieve a lot of the claims from truthers. I don't think the towers were rigged. I don't think WTC 7 was demolished. I'm pretty sure the four crashes are real. Because for me it matches the evidence.

I also want to say this. Unless "America" is a special place where no evil people can exist there is a high chance that a bunch of "evil" people got together and formulated a plan. Doesn't anyone find it strange that the guy who owned the twin towers happened to take a insurance claim 2-4 days before they came down? No one finds it strange that these supposed passports (which happened to have a combustable temp. of 451F) survived a huge fiery explosion that was said to "damn near melt steel" (which happens to have a combustable temp of 2700 degrees or so)...so out of all this mayhem...tiny passports survived a huge fireball and land a 1,000 feet away...-_- Even the FBI admits that the trail was left there on purpose...

I also find it crazy that within hours they knew exactly who "did it". Yet, there truly was no hard evidence that pointed to "osama". Even in the video that claims he said he did it has been disproved many times by experts in their field. http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/Noevidence.pdf

My main problem is this...I don't know who did it. I don't know if the government is telling the truth or it is not. It is possible that 9.11 was an inside job? Yes. DO we know for sure? NO. WE will never know until someone comes out and says it. That is the main problem with conspiracy theorist and people who are anti-conspiracy theorist. You can find credible information for both sides of an argument. It is up to you to decide.

Also, people should be more outraged that our government allowed the murdering of 1.8 million Iraqi civilians since 2001. These people had nothing to do with 9/11 (if the government story is true). If 9/11 was an inside job that means that 12 or 13 extremist outsmarted and outplayed a multi-billion dollar year defense budget. Not only that but going to war with Iraq and killing those people is the same as this...

Say you walk into a classroom looking for 2 students who blew up your car and killed your son. You walk into the classroom there is a 100 students and you just start blowing everyone fucking head off. Makes no sense. People should see that 9/11 if the government story is not true. 9/11 was a way to get the american people to behind the war that can perpetuate the military industrial complex. Seeing as it is a huge revenue of income for the American government (net worth in the hundreds of billions a year).

I never though about it that way, but you are correct. Each side has it's own credible evidence and no one will know the actual truth until it is admitted 100%. I guess we should just stop arguing over it because whether or not it was an inside job we will most likely never know.

Yea, that what i say. I use to be all into it when it happen. Slowly i realized that i will never know the truth and that i should just carry on with my life. The thing that gets me is that most conspiracy theories fall into two categories....Logical,rational, and scientific reasoning to connect the dots...and the tin foil i believe in reptile people type. Sadly, most people see them all the same and it sucks for people like me who actually just believe that it could have happened another way then the mandated response from our government.

Glad we were able to have a logical discussion and be intelligent human beings striving for knowledge.

Bottom line is if you want to believe it was an inside job, you will believe it no matter what the evidence is. There was a recent study that shows even when people are presented with facts they will generally still not believe them. It's a major problem with the GOP right now. The bush administration couldn't coordinate a volleyball tournament, let alone something of that magnitude. You mean to tell me the same people who bungled Katrina organized the biggest false flag operation in US history? The worst presidency of the last 80 years was capable of a cover up never before seen? As much as I hate Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. I am confident that they were not competent enough to pull something like this off. They sucked really really bad, so bad they let that a bunch of Saudi assholes beat them.

I don't think there was any controlled demolition. If you notice in any video that shows the building windows blowing out they don't include the sound 9/10 times, because anyone can hear the lack of explosions from coming from the towers and imagine that theory is in correct. I know there's a video of some fire fighter saying he heard explosions but first hand accounts are not always accurate.

As for the first link, I have never even heard of the first two. The 3rd one, however, it full of bullshit.

The Dogwood Elementary School was poorly built, first of all. It also had no sprinklers, no firewalls, and was never asked to put them in.

As for Windsor, it didn't collapse. Some of the sides gave out, but it did not collapse as depicted here. It underwent a lot of damage, but the steel frame with held the fire for 18 hours. 18 HOURS!! The fire at Windsor was far worse than the one at WTC 7, and also burned much longer, but it didn't collapse.

Now for WTC 5. Only 3 floors in WTC 5 collapsed. People claim the whole building buckled under itself and fell due to heat damage, but some structural engineers claim that it was the connections between the floors. Only floors 8, 7, 6, and 5 collapsed. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 did not collapse. The situation in WTC 7 was not nearly as bad as this, yet it still managed to implode?

Watched the video. I personally don't believe thermite was used (in fact I don't even have an opinion on HOW they were brought down...). But I would like to point something out. Everyone keeps claiming that WTC 7 had undergone lots of fires etc etc... Look at that video (or just click here) and look around 3:30. WTC 7 looks perfectly intact to me. I don't see a single fire. Also, look at 6:10. On the left you will see WTC 7 as the north tower comes down. It looks perfectly fine to me. Also, it really doesn't seem like much debris even touched it, let alone engulfed it into flames.

Planes fly into buildings/remove insulation/fires - Global collapse
Nobody knows how much was removed. NIST did some tests and said enough was.

WTC7 had debris from the towers fall on it.

NIST answers the question Did wtc falling debris have anything to do with
the collapse of wtc seven? as "perhaps". The official reason given is
column 47 walked 5.5 inches causing global collapse. Any given area in
building seven had twenty minutes of fuel to burn.

That is a horrible line of reasoning. We had someone have a miscarriage at my job, and one of the bosses who found her said on the radio when asked where to send the ambulance, "She looks OK, I don't think we need one". Everyone who heard that almost smacked their heads or looked at someone else in the office when he said that. You can have lots of internal damage and not appear that way on the outside.

Well, look at it. There were claims of fires as early as 9:30 AM, this was somewhere maybe a half hour to an hour later. I don't see any fires, unless they are on the north side. But then again, people are claiming these fires had enough power to damage the entire structure of a steel building.

So this video is from around 10-10:30, and the building collapsed around 7 hours later, so you don't think that fires could have gone on inside for those 7 hours enough to damage the load bearing portions of the structure(the entire structure doesn't need to be damaged for a building to collapse).

However, it would be impossible to pull off something that huge, and not have any witnesses.

Many witnesses existed for Operation Gladio created in 1948. We're still in the dark as to what exactly went on.

If Gladio was effectively "the best-kept, and most damaging, political-military secret since World War II",[9] it must be underlined, however, that on several occasions, arms caches were discovered and stay-behind paramilitary organizations officially dissolved – only to be created again. But it was not until the 1990s that the full international scope of the program was disclosed to public knowledge.

Why was a parent who accidentally ran over their child while backing out of the garage not charged with a crime(keeping in mind that hitting just a sign pole and keeping on driving can get you arrested)?

Sometimes it's bad enough just knowing that your action/inaction caused the death of another/others, and charging you for a mistake you will NEVER make again serves no purpose.

Yes, cave dwellers from across the world were able to elude our airport security, take over planes with box cutters, set up the course to fly into New York City some 90 miles away without any NORAD intervention (which was ordered by the highest levels of our government not to intervene since Bush was in a classroom, it would be Dick Cheney), and be able to hit the targets with our government saying fuck it, instead of putting down a couple hundred lives right now why don't we put 10 million of them in potential danger. They knew the planes were headed into New York well ahead of time. Fact is, NORAD would normally shoot these planes down, knowing they were hijacked and on a collision course towards our most heavily populated city. Think about it. Don't automatically label me as a "truther". Questions have to be asked, and when they are not answered, further investigation is required. I would believe it wasn't an inside job if we were all shown undeniable evidence that could link the collapse of the towers, to the airliners crashing, to the hijackers, to Al-Qaeda, and to Osama Bin Laden. But we have not been given this proof just a story of Al Qaeda sent 19 hijackers to fly into the world trade centers. Where are the manuscripts? Where are the black box's so we can hear what happened in the cockpit? Where is a video clearly showing an American Airlines plane? And why was a passport of one of the "hijackers" found neatly placed on the rubble of the two towers? You can cry where is the evidence? all day long. Message me and I'll provide you evidence of every factual claim I made. But can you do the same for your position?

Yeah but not with the intent to invade and crash land in our most highly protected areas. These planes were obviously on a COLLISION course towards Washington, PA, and New York. 20 minutes before the plane hit the Pentagon, Dick Cheney was asked by NORAD for authority to take action. He repeatedly denied this and just said don't worry about it. Your attempt to blur by far the greatest national security threat in the nation with other isolated incidents is simply because you're uninformed and looking for answers. There are many pieces to the puzzle that will never be answered. But with what is, the end picture remains visible.. You are never informed unless you know both sides of an issue. So lets take this a step further and say it is the first time NORAD has not intervened with any aerial direct terrorist threat in our protected airspace zones. Open your mind. I don't claim to know all the answers but I'm not so ignorant as to shut out other's opinions even when they don't deal with facts.

I do know what NORAD's protocols are as they are clear and easily google-able. The reason why is that almost all hijacked planes are leaving the country and not in protected airspace for the entirety of the flight. 9/11 was a false flag operation=why NORAD didn't take action as Dickface Cheney told them not to worry about anything... As for the other hijackings, I have no idea

To what I know, most anti-truthers will always say, where's the evidence. Oh you got it on the internet. The internet is such a reliable source, not. But what is the internet? A place that gives you information. But that's what the news is too! So for me to be credible, I guess I have to take said person in a time machine and to New York at the exact moment the towers collapsed! It's ridiculous. It couldn't possibly be critical thinking that led me to my conclusion. But heres the deal. Information alone isn't enough to formulate my opinion, like oh the news said so so it must be true. I take info from many different sources and when things don't add up I do even more research and think critically to eventually come to a conclusion. But everything is subjective anymore. Truth is subjective. Rationality is subjective. It's a case of he said she said. Nobody wants to think anymore. Break out of your bubbles. There's a whole world out there that's laughing at you.

It was just off the extreme right hand side of the view. Every time it would have become visible, they zoom in closer to the towers, until they couldn't zoom in any further. It's really just that simple.